Polyp interview: “imaginary injustices”
Article published: Friday, March 18th 2011
After months of on-line bickering with those he describes as “unscientific” and “paranoid” Manchester’s number one political cartoonist, Polyp, will next week take on all comers at the great conspiracy theory debate. In anticipation fellow rationalist and non-believer Tim Hunt decided to ask him a few questions about his exploration into the murky world of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘inside jobs’.
Where did your obsession with conspiracy theories and theorists start?
I’m an Apollo moon landing geek, and the theory that the moon landi
ngs were faked drew me in, on a fun level. Plus for a while I believed the conspiracy theory that JFK was assasinated by the government, and was pretty pissed off that a lot of the pro-conspiracy ‘evidence’ turned out to be so blatantly fake and misleading.
Recently, coming across many many examples of the more extreme conspiracy theorists also promoting Holocaust denial made me furious… something I then exposed in an article for New Internationalist. I’m not saying that ALL 9/11 ‘truthers’ (a modest term!) are also ‘Holohoax’ (a vile term!) believers, but I’m appalled by the overlap, and feel the one thing they do have in common are ridiculously poor standards of evidence, and paranoid claims about massive global scale cover ups.
Why do you think that it’s such a serious issue – one worthy of so much attention?
The world is packed full of serious injustices and ecological problems (all of them backed up by solid evidence) that desperately need activists to tackle them. Given that I find conspiracy theory evidence so unconvincing, it breaks my heart to see so many potential activists campaigning against what I see as imaginary injustices like 9/11 or chemtrails. I’m also a passionate skeptic- people need to apply rigorous standards of evidence to their own beliefs, something the conspiracy mindset seems to be dead against. On a practical level, there’s also an anti vaccination / conspiracy movement, which has the potential to do immense harm as parents decide not to vaccinate their kids on the basis of paranoid misinformation.
An insidious attempt at control or a load of rubbish?
You recently published an article on the subject in New Internationalist magazine, what was the reaction to this like amongst the conspiracy theorists?
Most of them assume that the only possible reason I might disagree with them is that I’m not familiar with their ‘evidence’. I am familiar with it. I just don’t find it convincing, and know very few serious justice and sustainablilty activists who do. Every piece of conspiracy evidence I’ve looked at has a perfectly sensible alternative explanation, and the majority of qualified experts in structural physics etc etc also find it unconvincing. A lot of the ‘evidence’ is also just blatant lies.
On a common sense level most conspiracy ideas make no sense in their own right- they have no internal logic, I mean WHY would you need to have the World Trade Center buildings collapse- wouldn’t the huge plane impacts, the hundreds of deaths, the people leaping to their deaths and the ruined towers burning for ages… wouldn’t that have been enough to make US citizens wild with anger? Why risk doing a controlled demolition and getting caught? Why risk ‘demolishing’ building 7 as well? Wouldn’t the two towers have been enough? It makes no sense- even at that level!
A selection of the more annoying reactions have been –
‘You’re a pro Government gatekeeper’ (Or sometimes ‘You’re a disinformation agent’)
‘You’re narrow minded’
‘You’re naive’
‘You’re a gutless coward’
‘You’re a fuck-wit geek know it all’ (Some truth in that one!)
No-one has yet actually engaged with the questions I raised in the article, which is pretty telling.
What do you think of the argument that we should just ignore these people in the hope that they go away?
I reckon it’s a really strong argument! But what impassions me about this is that the conspiracy ‘truthers’ are claiming to be the real activists, and as a long time activist myself, I kind of feel this is my ‘turf’ and I want to defend it from being co-opted and discredited. Plus I see man made climate change denial as a classic conspiracy theory. As is creationism.
Do you think conspiracy theorists have particular personality traits?
I think there’s a kind of ‘template’ for conspiracy thinking – wild assumptions about gigantic, ‘Matrix’ style deceptions, an insulting, laughable and arrogant contempt for anyone who disagrees with them, and a tendency to be convinced by quite flimsy (if initially and superficially convincing) evidence. Once they ‘believe’ they become as dogmatic as creationists, and refuse to modify their position when you present them with facts that utterly debunk their claims. They WANT to believe, no matter what, and they think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a cringing conformist…
Which is the most outlandish conspiracy you came across?
The most outrageous one I’ve heard lately is that because Wikileaks doesn’t have any ‘pro 9/11 inside job’ revelations, it must be a ‘New World Order’ front. Presumably they think that about Chomsky as well? (He’s a conspiracy skeptic, as is Monbiot.) Plus the ‘Nasa is covering up evidence about Planet X which is going to collide with the Earth and kill us all in 2012’ one is pretty wild.
Polyp published “Challenging the Politics of Paranoia” in the March issue of the New Internationalist.
Manchester We Are Change have also posted an entertaining youtube video to promote the event, hinting that Polyp, New Internationalist and the Greater Manchester Skeptics group are all secretly ‘gatekeepers’ for the establishment.
Wednesday 23 March 7:00 in the conference suit of Manchester Metropolitan University.
More: Culture, Manchester
Comments
-
‘an insulting, laughable and arrogant contempt for anyone who disagrees with them’.
This exactly descibes intolerant greens when anyone dares challenge their hysterical beliefs about eco-doom. We get demented comparisions with those who deny the holocaust, calls for dissent to be made a criminal offence, false claims of a consensus and arrogant displays of conspicuous consumption from eco-types like Al Gore and Prince Charles while they tell the rest of us to live the simple life.
Ecomania might just be a conspiracy. It has all the personality traits you mention Polyp!
Sound like you are tilting at windmills to me mate. Take up golf or something.
Comment by simon on March 18, 2011 at 3:18 pm -
Something hit a nerve there, simon?
Comment by richard on March 18, 2011 at 3:24 pm -
I think the point is somethings are based on science and investigation. while this doesn’t make them ‘true’ it gives them weight and leads to further investigation and scrutiny.
e.g.
gravity – investigation, scrutiny, consensusclimate change – investigation, scrutiny, consensus
chemtrails – investigation, scrutiny, consensus its bullshit
simon – investigation, scrutiny, consensus he’s a twat
Comment by nick g on March 18, 2011 at 3:43 pm -
No, not really Richard.
I just reckon Polyp is a bit odd.
He says that it ‘breaks his heart to see so many potential activists campaigning against what I see as imaginary injustices like 9/11 or chemtrails.’
Really?
Funny how these activists are never heard about in the MSM. The activists I hear about there are never concerned with these things.
I’m an avid listener to podcasts, mainly from the US, about all sorts of conspiracy theories and paranormal ‘phenomena’. That’s where all the 9/11 and chem trail nonsense is heard. Grey aliens and Big Foot, Nazi UFOs and anti-gravity devices etc etc.
These podasts play to a miniscule number of oddballs and a much larger specialist audience who seek them out for fun. They are hugely entertaining, just as science fiction, ghost stories and other tosh.
I reckon Polyp has made the mistake of thinking lots of people take such stuff seriously. Either that or he is playing to an audience which does. Or perhaps both.
Comment by simon on March 19, 2011 at 3:13 am
The comments are closed.
